dht@druri.UUCP (Davis Tucker) (08/03/85)
THE PROBLEMS OF SCIENCE FICTION TODAY
PART IX: Lack Of Criticism
by Davis Tucker
_______________________________________________________________________________
With a few notable exceptions, critical endeavors in the field of science
fiction have been nonexistent. Book reviews tend to be short and to the
point, and there are few literary journals that have science fiction as their
bailiwick. What efforts we have seen have been notable more for the fact
that they have actually been published, than for what they necessarily
contain. Delany's "The Jewel-Hinged Jaw" and LeGuin's essays are exceptions,
and there certainly are others. But it is interesting to note that virtually
all of the science fiction criticism that has been penned has been by authors
currently working in the field. And due to the sociological factors of their
group, science fiction writers, even Delany and LeGuin, pull their punches
and let people off the proverbial hook. I have yet to read anything more
than mildly disparaging about Asimov's work by a science fiction author,
and I wonder how that correlates with the fact that he edits one of the
science fiction magazines. We cannot blame the authors who venture into
this field - it's understandable that they will concentrate on works that
they feel showcase the best of science fiction, and that they would avoid
soiling their own nest by attacking someone else's work, a someone that
they meet two or three times a year, possibly. Many of them may feel that
there's quite enough infighting in science fiction as it is, and the last
thing anyone who writes science fiction wants to do is disparage the field
he has chosen. At best, it's difficult. The vast majority of critical
work in the field is of the "How To" variety, which cannot really be con-
sidered criticism at all.
There's a strong current of the old "He who can, does, he who cannot,
criticizes" mentality in science fiction. For being such an intellectual
genre compared to most, it's an interestingly anti-intellectual critical
milieu. Very often the first response to adverse criticism is "Let's see
you do better". This anti-critical attitude perhaps can be traced back to
the first thirty years of science fiction, when critics either ignored or
laughed at science fiction. To be brutally frank, science fiction has a
large inferiority complex toward the rest of the literary world, and evinces
a constant need to defend itself, glorify its acomplishments, attack its
supposed enemies, intead of being secure enough of a field of endeavor to
ignore the barbs and catcalls from outside. Science fiction has always
craved legitimacy, and has rarely been accorded any. Book reviewers of
major publications and newspapers rarely review science fiction novels.
Science fiction is seen as juvenile and incomplete and insular, with
some justification. Comparing it to other genre literature, such as
mysteries, we find that although they both share insularity and an often
narrow appeal, science fiction is less bounded by genre requirements
than any other, and therefore should arguably have a greater attraction for
critical attempts. Unfortunately, this is not the case.
Has science fiction built such a wall around itself that no self-respecting
critic will vault over it? Has the field grown so inbred and chummy and
self-congratulatory that virtually no critics have emerged from it? I don't
know the answer. I hope not, but I have nagging suspicions. By no means
am I saying that science fiction needs literary criticism to be legitimized;
although that is definitely a possibility. But criticism is important to
any artform - it provides a framework for appreciation, it provides a means
of greater understanding, and it most definitely provides practicioners
with guideposts and arguments and avenues and explanations. Authors have
serious problems with critics, and with the whole idea of criticism being
a valid field of literature. There is tension and not a small amount of
acrimony between writers and critics, and it will always be there and
should always be there. Authors often forget that it's better to be terribly
excoriated in print than simply ignored, that anything is preferable to being
overlooked. Just as critics often forget that they have as much responsiblity
to their craft as authors do to theirs, perhaps more. But science fiction,
for one reason or another, is totally dominated by the author mentality,
just as Broadway plays are generally dominated by the critic mentality.
There's the science fiction paraphrase of the Republican's 11th Commandment -
"Thou shalt not speak ill of thou fellow authors". Which is understandable.
But there's no group of people who fill in the void, who provide their
readership with accurate insights into the work behind the work, who tell
readers what they can expect, and why or why not this work is any good.
It will immediately be pointed out that virtually all of the science fiction
magazines have book review columns. Besides the fact that these columns are
written by authors, not critics, and the fact that they rarely run to any
length whatsoever, it must be remembered that book reviews are the mere
beginnings of critical effort. The baby's first steps. And I've never read
a science fiction book review which remotely approached the caliber of the
New York Times Book Review, with the exception of Delany's review of Thomas
Disch's "Angouleme", a semiotic study more than a review, and Damon Knight
on Blish's "Common Time". Science fiction fans should welcome critical effort
in the field, if only because it makes authors take notice, and realize
that what they are doing is being looked at with an objective eye. Even
if you never read a critical essay in your life, you will benefit from
the effect that it has on authors, publishers, and others who look at
science fiction with different eyes. The strident defensiveness that
characterizes science fiction's collective attitude toward criticism
must give way to welcome, and eager courtship. There is no need to remain
outside the pale, there is no reason why science fiction must enforce
upon itself the ostracism it once endured unwillingly.
This isn't just one man's opinion. Many important people in the field have
stated as much, in some cases much more strongly. At any rate, tune in next
week for the final installment: "THE PROBLEMS OF SCIENCE FICTION TODAY, PART
X: A Prescription For The Future".webber@utcs.UUCP (R. D. Webber) (08/07/85)
In article <1147@druri.UUCP> dht@druri.UUCP (Davis Tucker) writes: > >... it is interesting to note that virtually >all of the science fiction criticism that has been penned has been by authors >currently working in the field. It seems to me that I have read mention of quite a few academic critics in such places as Budrys's review columns in F&SF. He largely disparages them as having too little knowledge of the field, but they do, apparently, exist. >And due to the sociological factors of their >group, science fiction writers, even Delany and LeGuin, pull their punches >and let people off the proverbial hook. Would you care to back up this comment with some real, concrete examples, along with a description of the sociological factors involved in each particular case? The following: >I have never read anything more >than mildly disparaging about Asimov's work by a science fiction author, >and I wonder how that correlates with the fact that he edits one of the >science fiction magazines. doesn't count because Asimov does not edit the magazine which bears his name: Shawna McCarthy was the editor until recently; the editor is now Gardiner Dozois. >We cannot blame the authors who venture into >this field - it's understandable that they will concentrate on works that >they feel showcase the best of science fiction, and that they would avoid >soiling their own nest by attacking someone else's work, a someone that >they meet two or three times a year, possibly. Ah, that explains why Charles Platt is so popular. > >There's a strong current of the old "He who can, does, he who cannot, >criticizes" mentality in science fiction. For being such an intellectual >genre compared to most, it's an interestingly anti-intellectual critical >milieu. Very often the first response to adverse criticism is "Let's see >you do better". While you're digging up some examples to substantiate this, keep track of the names of the authors involved, and see if a pattern emerges. > >There is tension and not a small amount of >acrimony between writers and critics, and it will always be there and >should always be there. Why? >Authors often forget that it's better to be terribly >excoriated in print than simply ignored, that anything is preferable to being >overlooked. Just as critics often forget that they have as much responsiblity >to their craft as authors do to theirs, perhaps more. Pardon me, but, "Sez you!" This is simple speculation on your part. > >This isn't just one man's opinion. Many important people in the field have >stated as much, in some cases much more strongly. Who? How about some examples, rather than assertion and hand-waving? Frankly, your essay could have done with a lot of editorial criticism. Your writing style is so "lumpy" that I find myself ready to argue even with the points I agree with. Bob Webber